HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Edmonton Oilers (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=38)
-   -   The case for Jamie Lundmark. (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=19454)

Lowetide 10-13-2003 05:22 AM

The case for Jamie Lundmark.
 
When we talk about possible return for Mike Comrie, this guy comes up alot, so often in fact that it's easy to skip by him. However, imo he might be the best player available to Edmonton in any deal. Here's my reasons:

1. These teams trade often This would have to be considered an understatement. In fact, Lowe's obsesssion with NY state is alarming (Hamrlik, Carter, Niinimaa, Poti, Markkanen, Pisa, Hecht, who am I missing?) but his return has been pretty good (Brewer, Dvorak, Isbister, Torres, York, Deslauriers, Stoll). Seems to me a struggling NY team might look better with a 1-4 center depth chart that reads Nedved, Comrie, Holik, Messier.

2. Lundmark hasn't been mishandled by the Rangers Unlike Blackburn and a host of other prospects, the Rangers had Lundmark finish out his junior career, then he played a season in the AHL. He has been brought along slowly.

3. He's 6 feet and can play center Lundmark isn't a hard body, but he does have size, 6-0 and 195. When he was given legit pt by the Rangers last season (in January), he went 6-2-8 in 11 games.

4. He's still flying under the radar. If we make a list of quality players in the NHL right now, many if not most spent their first season or two in the NHL just getting used to the speed and physical style in the league. By year three, many players break out and become so valuable another team is unable to acquire them. How often have we said "the Oilers should have traded for Patrick Marleau when they could get him", or "Shane Doan took three years to develop, they should have traded for him when they had a chance". I'm not saying Lundmark is going to be an 80 point man or a 30 goal scorer, but he scored 27 as a 20 year old rookie in the AHL, and that has to count for something (igor? am I right?)

5. He's 22 Young and good. Helluva combination if you ask me. He hasn't scored yet this season, and the Rangers are off to a poor start (0-2) against opponents they should be killing.


I don't think Lundmark is enough on his own, but what about something like:

Lundmark, NYR's 1st round pick in 2004


for


Comrie, EDM's 2nd round pick in 2004


or maybe the right to flip picks in 04 or 05. It worked with Boston.


Thoughts?

Allan 10-13-2003 05:40 AM

I have to say that I can't think of a better trade which is reasonably possible. I've been hoping the Oilers would get Lundmark for a while now, though it was as a #2 to Comrie. He seems to be the best choice out there, and Sather and Lowe have an obvious history.

The Imp 10-13-2003 05:48 AM

Lundmark can hide in NY, not in Edmonton
 
Part of the reason why Comrie isn't signed (allegedly), is that he's uncomfortable under the pressure of playing in Edmonton. I'd want to be very sure that the same thing won't happen to Lundmark...

rabi_sultan 10-13-2003 06:38 AM

if thats the alleged rumour then i can't see MC signing in Edmonton, lowetide that trade looks so good for us, a first in a good draft year (right?) plus Lundmark someone who is hungry for NHL time.

Obsessed 10-13-2003 06:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by petelars
Part of the reason why Comrie isn't signed (allegedly), is that he's uncomfortable under the pressure of playing in Edmonton. I'd want to be very sure that the same thing won't happen to Lundmark...

I tend to think that maybe Comrie is a "special" case when it comes to playing in front of his home crowd. I dont remember any other locals that have crumbled under the intense scrutiny of the Edmonton fan base. We are definatley passionate however we are also extremely forgiving. If Comrie were to resolve this issue quickly it could be forgoten about. The longer it goes on the larger the tumor of resentment becomes.

Now as for the trade proposal.. I think that Lowetide makes a strong postion. Wasn't Lundmark the top of his draft class? Not that it matters a ton. I really like the idea of stock piling first rounders for the purpose of taking a legitimate stab at Ovechkin. If we can get a prospect like Jamie who we attempted to get already and cross our fingers that NYR flounder miserably in the bottom 3 of the league... We may end up with. Comrie and a 2nd for Lundmark and Ovechkin (plus probably our own first rounder in a swap). I would do that.

I would officially like to annonce my exiting of the Rita bandwagon. He sould be dealt. His year to shine in E-Town should have been last year. Salmo now needs his opp. and Rita is clogging up his development. I dont have a fair proposal however I think Atlanta would be a good destination. The return would have to be a player witha fair bit of development already though because of the efforts of our organization to grow Rita.

Obsessed

rabi_sultan 10-13-2003 06:52 AM

just a thought from your mentioning of Rita how about

Lundmark, 1st

Rita, Comrie.

Solves the depth problem plus we get that centre we want. What about from a NYR POV would they want MC and Rita for the price of Lundmark and a first?

Digger12 10-13-2003 07:19 AM

I dunno, count me in as someone who's not totally sold on Lundmark as a top prospect.

Looking at his junior, AHL and early NHL stats, what's to get excited about? Jarret Stoll looks like just as much a prospect from my end, yet we want to trade Comrie for Lundmark nearly straight up?

If we have to trade Comrie, I'd rather get a quality Dman in return. Just my opinion.

WestcoastOIL 10-13-2003 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Digger12
I dunno, count me in as someone who's not totally sold on Lundmark as a top prospect.

Looking at his junior, AHL and early NHL stats, what's to get excited about? Jarret Stoll looks like just as much a prospect from my end, yet we want to trade Comrie for Lundmark nearly straight up?

If we have to trade Comrie, I'd rather get a quality Dman in return. Just my opinion.

I'd have to agree as well. IMO we need someone to shore up the defense right now and maybe use some of the money left over to p/u a adam oates type player for the time being. A quick fix at center until our prospect can develop. At least with a stonger core defense that can stay intact for a long period of time would bring stability to the back end.

Either way i think we'll all find out soon enough

Lowetide 10-13-2003 07:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Digger12
I dunno, count me in as someone who's not totally sold on Lundmark as a top prospect.

Looking at his junior, AHL and early NHL stats, what's to get excited about? Jarret Stoll looks like just as much a prospect from my end, yet we want to trade Comrie for Lundmark nearly straight up?

If we have to trade Comrie, I'd rather get a quality Dman in return. Just my opinion.


Well, I really like Stoll, so have no problem with putting those two in the same general area. Also, the value of a 1st rounder is huge imo, even if the Oilers have to throw in a 2.

In terms of comparing Stoll and Lundmark, here's what they did in the AHL as 20 year olds:

Stoll 02-03: 76gp, 21-33-54 .71ppg
Lundmark 01-02: 79gp, 27-32-59 .75ppg

Looks almost identical. I like them both alot.

Oi'll say! 10-13-2003 07:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lowetide
I don't think Lundmark is enough on his own, but what about something like:

Lundmark, NYR's 1st round pick in 2004

for


Comrie, EDM's 2nd round pick in 2004

Comrie and a 2nd rounder for Lundmark and Ovechkin? The Rag$ would never go for that! :p

Asiaoil 10-13-2003 07:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lowetide
I don't think Lundmark is enough on his own, but what about something like:

Lundmark, NYR's 1st round pick in 2004


for


Comrie, EDM's 2nd round pick in 2004


or maybe the right to flip picks in 04 or 05. It worked with Boston.


Thoughts?

A sound idea as usual LT - but I would suggest that this team does not need any more forwards with the existing young players we have in Edmonton, TO and elsewhere. With Niinimaki, MAP and Winchester on the way in addition to young talent like Stoll, Horcoff, Reasoner and York - there will also be little room at center unless the player is truly elite (Lundmark is a nice player but not certainly not elite).

Now a young dman is another thing all together and that's probably the best asset the obtain for MC.

Lowetide 10-13-2003 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Asiaoil
Now a young dman is another thing all together and that's probably the best asset the obtain for MC.

Well, the 2004 draft class has several quality defensemen (Cam Barker from Medicine Hat, Wes O'Neill from Notre Dame, Mike Card from Kelowna, Mark Fistric from Vancouver) so the Oilers are in a good position to get one of them next summer depending on where they finish.

In terms of NHL defensemen, I agree the Oilers could definitely cash in Comrie to get one of them. The question really comes down to which NHL teams can afford to move a defenseman?

I think Detroit is the only one.

Digger12 10-13-2003 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Asiaoil
Now a young dman is another thing all together and that's probably the best asset the obtain for MC.

Given that Lowe was trying to move up in the '03 draft to grab a Dman but pulled the chute when Comrie was wanted in return, does anyone think he'd like to go back in time and do that deal if it meant getting a defensive stud like Phaneuf?

Asiaoil 10-13-2003 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lowetide
Well, the 2004 draft class has several quality defensemen (Cam Barker from Medicine Hat, Wes O'Neill from Notre Dame, Mike Card from Kelowna, Mark Fistric from Vancouver) so the Oilers are in a good position to get one of them next summer depending on where they finish.

In terms of NHL defensemen, I agree the Oilers could definitely cash in Comrie to get one of them. The question really comes down to which NHL teams can afford to move a defenseman?

I think Detroit is the only one.

Well Nashville has both Hamhuis and Suter in their system - and although Suter is probably untouchable - Hamhuis may be tradable. Atlanta also has a decent amount of defensive depth. Frankly I could get very interested in a deal like Garnet Exelby and a 1st rounder for MC. Boston has a couple of guys.........so there is more out there than just Detroit.

creative giant* 10-13-2003 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Digger12
Given that Lowe was trying to move up in the '03 draft to grab a Dman but pulled the chute when Comrie was wanted in return, does anyone think he'd like to go back in time and do that deal if it meant getting a defensive stud like Phaneuf?

Well, as lowetide already mentioned, there's nothing stopping klowe from hanging onto comrie until the next draft and then trading up for a pick that could land a solid dman

Av-merican 10-13-2003 11:25 AM

Please, for the love of all that's sacred, these teams should be banned from trading with one another. ENOUGH!!! :rolleyes:

speeds 10-13-2003 12:20 PM

I'm not a huge Lundmark fan, so I'd pass, but the general idea isn't too bad, IMO.

thome_26 10-13-2003 12:33 PM

C'mon people.... Lindros, Nedved, Holik, Messier - NO WHERE for Comrie......

speeds 10-13-2003 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thome_26
C'mon people.... Lindros, Nedved, Holik, Messier - NO WHERE for Comrie......

As far as I know Messier, Lindros, and Nedved could all be UFA's within a year or two, it's not hard to see why they'd want to acquire a young C like Comrie.

thome_26 10-13-2003 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by speeds
As far as I know Messier, Lindros, and Nedved could all be UFA's within a year or two, it's not hard to see why they'd want to acquire a young C like Comrie.

Sure, maybe in the offseason.... NOT NOW!! What would they do with the five of them? Don't expect to see Lindros or Messier moved. Holik isn't a good winger, and Nedved plays his best at center.

speeds 10-13-2003 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thome_26
Sure, maybe in the offseason.... NOT NOW!! What would they do with the five of them? Don't expect to see Lindros or Messier moved. Holik isn't a good winger, and Nedved plays his best at center.

they might well plan ahead and trade for Comrie now, and convert someone to the wing.

If they wait for the offseason there would be no guarantee Comrie would still be available.

I'm not saying it's guaranteed to happen, but it's not like it couldn't either.

G-Double 10-13-2003 01:25 PM

Add another vote to the "pass on lundmark" camp, he could be a good player but i think he's gonna max out as an avg 2nd liner or an excllent 3rd liner, possibly like matt cooke w/o the physical edge. Also, i mention this everytime his name comes up, he hasn't played center in a at least 2 years and it was because he couldn't handle it at the pro (read, AHL) level.

I'd much rather have a D and a 1st than lundmark and a 1st...

hunter orange 10-13-2003 04:42 PM

How bout Tyutin & NYR 1st rounder in 2004?

...unlikely the Rags bite

mamettt 10-13-2003 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lowetide
When we talk about possible return for Mike Comrie, this guy comes up alot, so often in fact that it's easy to skip by him. However, imo he might be the best player available to Edmonton in any deal. Here's my reasons:

1. These teams trade often This would have to be considered an understatement. In fact, Lowe's obsesssion with NY state is alarming (Hamrlik, Carter, Niinimaa, Poti, Markkanen, Pisa, Hecht, who am I missing?) but his return has been pretty good (Brewer, Dvorak, Isbister, Torres, York, Deslauriers, Stoll). Seems to me a struggling NY team might look better with a 1-4 center depth chart that reads Nedved, Comrie, Holik, Messier.

2. Lundmark hasn't been mishandled by the Rangers Unlike Blackburn and a host of other prospects, the Rangers had Lundmark finish out his junior career, then he played a season in the AHL. He has been brought along slowly.

3. He's 6 feet and can play center Lundmark isn't a hard body, but he does have size, 6-0 and 195. When he was given legit pt by the Rangers last season (in January), he went 6-2-8 in 11 games.

4. He's still flying under the radar. If we make a list of quality players in the NHL right now, many if not most spent their first season or two in the NHL just getting used to the speed and physical style in the league. By year three, many players break out and become so valuable another team is unable to acquire them. How often have we said "the Oilers should have traded for Patrick Marleau when they could get him", or "Shane Doan took three years to develop, they should have traded for him when they had a chance". I'm not saying Lundmark is going to be an 80 point man or a 30 goal scorer, but he scored 27 as a 20 year old rookie in the AHL, and that has to count for something (igor? am I right?)

5. He's 22 Young and good. Helluva combination if you ask me. He hasn't scored yet this season, and the Rangers are off to a poor start (0-2) against opponents they should be killing.


I don't think Lundmark is enough on his own, but what about something like:

Lundmark, NYR's 1st round pick in 2004


for


Comrie, EDM's 2nd round pick in 2004


or maybe the right to flip picks in 04 or 05. It worked with Boston.


Thoughts?

No. No. and...No. Here's the problem LT with that line of reasoning....the oilers are giving a known commodity up for an unknown. We are giving the 32 goal 23 year old up for a question mark, and that is simply unnaceptable. When we trade comrie, it has to be for known return. By known return, I mean someone who has proven they can score in this league(or if there a defensmen, proven they can play). The person also should be, in best case scenario, young. But this "let's trade a 23 year old dynamite point producer for a prospect who's done squat" doesn't work in my books. We have the power. We have the leverage. All we have to do is sit and wait...if they don't come up with a good young player, forget it. We have enough forward depth as it is. We should not feel forced into anything. Lundmark is a nice young player, but if were talking comrie, start blackburn. It's that simple.

Obviously if someone offers us an uber prospect for comrie( stall, bowmesteer, speeza) we take it, but lundmakr is not on that list. I pray that K. Lowe doesn't follow the "let's give away the best young player we've had in ten years for someone who may be good in the future but just needs a shot". I'd rather let him sit, or pay him what he wants, than to see us get a poor return. This trade scenario is unique in recent history because comrie's contract, even if we gave in, is not so much that many, if not all, teams wouldn't take it on. All we need to do is wait until there's suffcient interest out there....maybe it will be in december, maybe it won't be until the deadline, but I can assure you, someone will come up with a good offer. And if they don't, he stays and rots.

And let's, for arguements sake, look at lundmark in terms of the criteria you laid out, 1 through 5.

1) The fact that these two teams trade together has no bearing on whether or not we should trade with them again. Every player is unique, every trade is different, and the fact that "we've traded with them before" doesn't ensure we will get quality back this time. In fact, our recent dealings with the rangers have been still very questionable. This one seems to come from left field a bit...

2) In a sense, he has been mishandled. Certainly not to the extent that other prospects have, but he plays on the fourth/third lines with little PP time and usually slugs as linemates. Last year he was brought up, would play 4th line minutes for a month, than be sent down. They jerked the kid around, up and down, round and round. It certainly isn't the worst prospect management we've seen, but it certainly didn't help him. The fact that "he hasn't been abused" is not the line you want your GM to say when he describes the return he got after he's just traded away a 23 year old 32 goal scorer.

3) He hasn't played center yet at the NHL level for any extended period of time. Not saying he can't, but it's not like he'll slide right in on the second line. Also, 6'0 and 195 is big for the oilers, but average for the league. He's no bigger than marty reasoner. If size is the criteria for judging/trading for a player, than we might as well just trade comrie for chagd kilger and say...look, we have a big center. I know I'm stretching your arguement a bit, but the point is that his size is a minor advantage, but is still not ideal in any sense.

4) I think that most hockey savvy people know that if given the right playing time he still has the talent to break out, but the flip side of that is he never turns out, that comrie goes on to score 40 on broadway, and viola, we're screwed. I agree with getting prospects before they breakout, but you don't trade 23 year old 32 goal scorers for them(unless their names are spezza or horton) without a signifcant amount more coming your way.

5) Comrie's 23 and has already done many, many more things in this league than lundmark has. Production versus age speaks for itself when comparing the two players. The value difference between the two is enormous.

USC Trojans 10-13-2003 04:55 PM

If the Rangers offered to pay part of his salary, would you do a Comrie for Lindros trade?


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:42 AM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.